dcaufandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Justice League vs. the Fatal Five
I feel as though the talk on canonicity is incomplete. While the statements are accurate, Sam Liu has elaborated that "when Bruce is attached and it is in his style he makes the big picture calls. It isn't for me to say officially whether a movie is or isn't in his continuity." https://twitter.com/_samliu_/status/1112950304281026560 This sentiment was further backed up by Warner Bros. PR, Gary Miereanu. (albeit I'm having a hard time tracking down the tweet now, but I know I've seen it.) Product(RFR!) (talk) 14:41, May 28, 2019 (UTC) ‏ :It contradicts both New Kids in Town and Far From Home. If they wanted to be in continuity, it should've been made in continuity. --[[User:Tupka217|'Tupka']]''217'' 15:23, May 28, 2019 (UTC) ::How does it contradict New Kids in Town and Far From Home? It would be fine if it took place after both episodes from their point of view, remember not every Legion of Superheroes member shows up in the movies so it's possible that Supergirl's busy with another mission at the time of the attack and not even Bouncing Boy appears in the Hall of Heroes. Remember, Far From Home says that Supergirl never returns, not even for things as important as funerals. --User:MrBlueSky23Message wall:MrBlueSky27 :: Contradicts how exactly? I remember recently you said " Cherry picking quotes doesn't win you any favors." and yet, that's exactly what's being done on this article by you. I'm not sure I understand the reason for your inconsistency.Product(RFR!) (talk) 15:29, May 29, 2019 (UTC) ::: As a side note, my comment wasn't about contradictions. Even if that were what I was talking about, that hasn't stopped on-screen material from being treated as in continuity before. MANY articles on this wiki include entire sections pointing out continuity errors and contradictions between what is accepted as canon. That aside, my comment was about the wording of production statements, and your response seems to be a distraction from my real issue here. Both sources used on this page to state that it's nebulous are quotes provided by Sam Liu who later expanded to state that it's not his decision, but Bruce Timm's. The lack of including Sam's expanded comment on the matter is cherry picking quotes to fit a narrative, which, as I've already stated, you've explicitly and publicly stated should not be done on this wiki. As for your point on "If they wanted to be in continuity, it should've been made in continuity." they did exactly that. Eric Carassco, the film's writer, has gone on the record multiple times to say that there were tweaks done to fit within continuity after the art style was changed "We definitely thought about it, is what I’m saying." https://twitter.com/erictcarrasco/status/1112868063400026112 in regards to previous DCAU adventures with the LoSH. Product(RFR!) (talk) 21:13, May 29, 2019 (UTC) :::It's not up to the fans to fill in the blanks with head canon to make the movie fit in the continuity. If it's supposed to be set in the DCAU timeline, then they needed to make it clear in the movie, not on interviews or social media. ― Thailog 11:35, May 29, 2019 (UTC) ::::As I've stated above, this wasn't what I was getting at in my initial post, but my post WAS about expanding on the quotes used as sources in the productions note section. Those quotes include " the filmmakers leave it up to the viewers to decide for themselves", which is diametrically opposed to the sentiment you share here. So I'm curious why that suffices to be used as a source when you're stating that's not the case? As for your other point that "they needed to make it clear in the movie", 1.)reused assets including character designs (both major and incidental), set pieces, and props 2.) returning voice actors 3.) Bruce Timm returning as a producer 4.) Dynamic Music Partners returning to compose and using multiple musical cues from throughout the DCAU shows 5.) New Arkham, first mentioned in Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker makes an appearance (Eric Carrasco confirms this was intentional in an interview with Watchtower Database which we'll be publishing in the near future) 6.)There's been confirmation that Two-Face's lines were re-done in ADR by Bruce Timm impersonating Richard Moll in order to be consistent with the Two-Face of this continuity 7.)Supergirl isn't seen at Star Boy's funeral, a direct continuity point with Far From Home which states she never returned. So, with all of these points of clarification within the film itself, what makes this film any less clear than say, MYstery of the Batwoman? I'm looking at that pages section for continuity and a lot of similar stuff could be said about this film: ::::"The events in this film take place before the flashback in Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker" made obvious by Harley's appearance and reference to Joker being in Arkham. So, if that's a continuity point for MOTB, that box is checked here as well (albeit, the stuff about the film occurring between Starcrossed and Initiation is pure conjecture. Weird to have that in a continuity section.) ::::"Bane was previously hired by Rupert Thorne to kill Batman in the Batman: The Animated Series episode "Bane". Strangely, Thorne doesn't have any resentment against Bane after he planned along Thorne's secretary Candice to take out him after Batman's potential defeat in that episode." Similar logic can be used to explain, say... Supergirl! "Supergirl was previously left in the future to live with the Legion of Super Heroes in "Far From Home". Strangely, she doesn't appear in this film and Superman doesn't ask any of the team about her whereabouts." If this is a point of continuity rather than a point a point of discontinuity for MoTB, then it should be treated as such here and as shown by the wording of the original posting, an explanation is not needed. ::::"Sonia Alcana seems to have replaced Renee Montoya as Harvey Bullock's partner. Strangely, Sonia wears similar clothing: grey pants, black top, and a shoulder holster." If adding new characters is a point of continuity, this movie has that too! ::::"The conversation that Barbara Gordon has on the phone with Bruce explores the relationship between Bruce and Barbara; this notion was first introduced in the Batman Beyond episode "A Touch of Curaré". Here, Barbara is shown having romantic interests towards Bruce, which makes him uncomfortable, also Tim and Alfred's lack of surprise implies this isn't the first time Barbara's made a pass at Bruce." Odd that this counts as a point of continuity when the implications in Batman Beyond are that the relationship was two-sided and not just Barbara making a pass. Once again, an example of a point of discontinuity being used as a point of continuity, and similar logic can be applied to your misgivings of JLvF5. ::::"Bruce tells Penguin the last time they met, he stole plutonium from Wayne Labs and threatened to blow up Gotham City. This happened off-screen, presumably sometime before the revamp and The New Batman Adventures, as the Penguin is apparently a "legal businessman" by that time." If references to events occuring off screen are continuity points, this movie has those as well. ::::"The Tarnower Building was previously seen in the Batman: The Animated Series episode "Mudslide"." Could easily be "The Metro Tower was previously seen in Justice League Unlimited" or "A new Arkham facility was first mentioned in Batman Beyond." :::Once again, this wasn't the point that I was making in my initial post, but it still stands that Justice League vs. The Fatal Five has just as much, if not more, points of continuity to the DCAU at large than Mystery of the Batwoman, and it's been shown in that films article that head-scratchers don't barr a film from canonicity.Product(RFR!) (talk) 22:02, May 29, 2019 (UTC) ::::Yeah, I agree with Product(RFR!). If Bruce Timm wants us to decide whether it's canon or not, we can make a poll and if most of us want it to be canon, we can make more articles and expand on the DC Animated Universe's history! Not only including Justice League vs. the Fatal Five, but Batman and Harley Quinn too! Even though they're some seemingly contradicitions, for example in B&HQ, like why Min and Max appear in that film if they were supposedly killed by Rupert Thorne, we can just not speculate but put a thing like "they somehow survived it". We can do the same here.----X9 The Android (talk) 16:31, June 2, 2019 (UTC) I'm just gonna jump in here for this convo and share my opinion. There's stuff that's technically part of the larger DCAU which this wiki doesn't count, for numerous reasons. From my understanding, is that the purpose of this wiki is to chronicle the events of the main DCAU from 1992 through 2006, when it formally, officially ended. On the audio commentary for JLvsF5, Bruce Timm himself said that when he made this movie, he didn't really care whether this film is even in continuity or not, and that fans can decide on their own. To quote "Once we decided we were going to set this in the old classic style, we had already committed to doing certain things with the characters, and it was like well this is going to cause some continuity issues, but I never bother trying to figure out where this stuff lands in , or whether it's even in continuity, to fans it's either in continuity or not, you guys can decide on your own. I'm a big believer in head-canon." For the sake of playing peace maker, everybody will have their own interpretations and timelines. Neither opinions are wrong. -Chuck G ::Thanks for sticking to the topic of what I was trying to get at Chuck. Kind of expected that from the mods, but it didn't go that way at all. The point I was trying to make wasn't about whether the film was in continuity or not, but that the way the article was written at the time cherry-picked quotes from Sam Liu to debunk it's status in continuity and I felt that it was necessary to paint a more full picture of Sam Liu's position by including that he also stated that continuity isn't up to him. I fully agree that this quote from Timm would have been a better one to use in juxtaposition to his later more concrete quote. Something along the lines of "despite Bruce Timm having publicly stated 'x', earlier while recording commentary for the film he stated 'y'". The impression that I've been getting as of late is that the mods on this wiki for some reason would prefer not to deal with these things at all for one reason or another, but when conversation arises pointing out the flaws in the way things are being handled it keeps being shut down all together or taken off on rabbit trails. I get that the resurgence of DCAU material will mean a bigger load of work for these guys, who from what I can tell seem to be mods on other wiki's as well and as such I assume are already pretty busy, but if they don't want to do the work then I don't seem to fully understand why even keep the power over the wiki? Idk, I've always seen wiki's as a crowdsourced effort and cutting off the community aspect of it with power trips that don't really address the issues at hand kinda gives me a bad taste all around. Maybe I'm ranting a bit. I mean no ill will towards anyone on the wiki staff. I just don't understand what's going on and why there seems to be such a negative attitude towards the community while they're trying to have legitimate conversations about things pertinent to the site.Product(RFR!) (talk) 19:07, June 5, 2019 (UTC) movie is canon Bruce Timm himself would confirm the canoncity at Wonder Con https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggCyAfwTF2U&feature=youtu.besee 2:30 --Omnihallows (talk) 23:52, June 30, 2019 (UTC)